[HN Gopher] Meta/Facebook is inviting Fediverse admins under NDA...
___________________________________________________________________
Meta/Facebook is inviting Fediverse admins under NDA for "meetings"
Author : pierat
Score : 63 points
Date : 2023-06-18 20:38 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mstdn.social)
(TXT) w3m dump (mstdn.social)
| Triangle9349 wrote:
| I think they need a self-moderating system aka Project P92 and
| the entire infrastructure and people are already there. Minimum
| costs, your rules. Next ads.
|
| perfect timing, people are looking for where to go from reddit
| and twitter. Mastadon and lemmy are a bit confusing for a newbie,
| I think Meta will fix that.
|
| Metaverse will not pay for itself.
| waboremo wrote:
| It seems like the rumor is self-referential. Is there anything
| more substantial here?
| rvz wrote:
| With this alternative it would mean that Instagram will be the
| biggest (Mastodon-compatible) social platform out there. Just
| like what happened with Gab. Henceforth, centralization wins
| again [0], even worse with the Mastodon admins going under NDA's
| with Meta to be corrupted with opaqueness and little to no
| transparency.
|
| As it stands unsurprisingly:
|
| "Instagram's success on ActivityPub is also Mastodon's nightmare
| and it tends to more centralization." [0]
|
| So I should be expecting mass instance-level bans and the de-
| federation of Instagram then?
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36012434
| slater wrote:
| Do you have an alert for anything and everything Mastodon? You
| seem obsessed with poo-pooing any Mastodon-adjacent news item
| posted here on HN.
| rvz wrote:
| Looks like I have a somewhat obsessed fan and a regular
| reader of my comment history.
|
| Besides that, my entire point still stands and centralization
| wins once again. A paradoxical situation that Mastodon cannot
| avoid without UX failures such as _' choosing an instance'_
| and having a single instance getting large enough risking
| more centralization and now we have Meta signing NDAs to
| instance admins to introduce corruption to the fediverse.
| slater wrote:
| I'm not obsessed, I just like reading stuff about
| federation. And any time there's a post about Mastodon here
| on HN, there's a near-100% chance you'll be in there,
| posting a variation of "told you so!! centralization wins
| again!!~", and that does not for an interesting discussion
| make.
| sattoshi wrote:
| If Fediverse admins accept the NDAs, it would be a shame. You
| can't run open communities while the top is conspiring.
| dark-star wrote:
| I would think that at least half of them (probably more)
| wouldn't say no to a suitcase full of cash....
| EA-3167 wrote:
| For sure, most people are only as principled as their
| opportunities allow them to be.
| samwillis wrote:
| My guess, is that they know they can't "own" the Fediverse, and
| their play is more about how to hedge its success and ensure they
| own a significant revenue stream from it. So my expectation is
| that they are making an advertising platform play. All the nodes
| cost a lot to run, and as the Fediverse grows will only get more
| resource intensive, and more expensive. If Facebook/Meta can
| build an advertising product that can fund nodes I'm sure there
| is a significant number that will take that up.
|
| Obviously there will be nodes that push back, I can see nodes de-
| federating Meta ad supported nodes.
|
| Maybe they will surprise us though and actually try and launch a
| Twitter like product as part of the Fediverse.
|
| One of the biggest issues they are going to find though is that
| so many of the influential Fediverse people are so anti Meta, and
| anti many of the things that they would want to build. Search and
| caching/reposting of content seems to be a toxic topic on the
| Fediverse, but something I'm sure Meta would want.
|
| It's going to be exciting watch, will have to get some popcorn.
| lakomen wrote:
| What did I tell you, Mastodon with Meta censorship. It's coming.
| Embrace extend exterminate.
| 10g1k wrote:
| Unless you are the perpetrator of some crime, you just have no
| reason to ever sign an NDA. Or unless you want the pile of cash
| they promise you. If there's no clear benefit for you, when
| someone says signing an NDA is part of the process, the answer is
| "No".
| throwawayadvsec wrote:
| This is one of the most stupid things I've ever read.
|
| Ever heard of trade secrets?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| a battle over this has developed in the web go-go days.
| Developers were purposefully asked to sign NDA not due to
| patents, but to control the applicants to rival startups.
| Meanwhile, certain developers were so valuable that they
| discovered they could make demands themselves.
| auxym wrote:
| Or patents and public disclosure.
|
| Ie, if you're in the process of developing patentable
| technology or writing a patent, anyone to whom you disclose
| details needs to be under NDA, otherwise your patent may be
| refused due to prior public disclosure.
|
| Or so is my understanding anyways, I am not a lawyer.
| jsnell wrote:
| There is a clear benefit: you get to hear what they're saying,
| while without signing the NDA you won't.
|
| On the other hand, there's very little downside to signing an
| NDA. Sure, it'll prevent you from revealing the information.
| But without signing the NDA, you don't get access to the
| information in the first place, and just as unable to reveal
| the information.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| I wish we could standardize this as a developer community, but
| of course there are those who are placed at disadvantage due to
| their visa status that pretty much have no choice to sign these
| things, and that sets a pattern that managers expect everyone
| to comply with..
|
| Is there some way to promote suggested standards in the
| industry? Maybe if someone like levels.fyi or layoffs.fyi or
| Blind were to suggest that we all start or stop doing whatever.
| piperswe wrote:
| Traditionally, unions are used to set standards for
| employees' relationships with companies.
| 111111IIIIIII wrote:
| Benefits aren't always clear. How old are you?
| notacoward wrote:
| My favorite was the one person who said they saw the call and
| just let it ring. Legend. I know I couldn't have resisted the
| temptation, if only to find out what kind of pitch it was. I'll
| bet that's something Mr. Zuckerberg (or more likely his admin)
| doesn't experience every day.
| NGRhodes wrote:
| My guess is Meta are trying bribe admins to ensure they federate
| Project P92.
| dnissley wrote:
| I'm not sure what Meta or the fediverse has to gain by attempting
| to get in bed with each other -- a lot of people on the fediverse
| are extremely anti-big-biz, and extremely anti-meta in
| particular.
|
| IMO all Meta has to do to succeed here is to create a better
| managed Twitter. They don't need to get all fancy with it by
| trying to bolt on fediverse compatibility.
|
| Disclaimer: I work at Meta, but not on IG or Project 92.
| marcinzm wrote:
| I figure they're making some type of long term
| embrace/extend/extinguish play against a potential competitor
| to their twitter plans.
| refulgentis wrote:
| - What is IG? If instagram, what relevance does it have to the
| Fediverse stuff?
|
| - What is Project 92?
|
| - When referring to "what Meta has to do to succeed here", what
| is here?
|
| - If it's federated Twitter, what makes it "just" in the
| sentence that "Meta just has to..."?
|
| - if Meta just does Twitter-but-well-run, wouldn't that run
| counter to federation?
| pierat wrote:
| That's the point: we just don't know what Facebook/Meta is
| planning.
|
| However, we DO know that Eugen Rochko signed the NDA with
| Facebook/Meta from
| https://433.world/@Yuvalne/110566872225488614 (screen cap of
| deleted post). Eugen Rochko is the creator of Mastodon.
|
| Text of screen capture:
|
| "screenshot of a partial Mastodon thread from Tusky.
|
| @gargron@mastodon.social: @dansup I think it's important to
| understand what they're working on and how it fits with what
| we're doing. Even if an NDA is required, knowing is better
| than not knowing.
|
| @dansup@mastodon.social: @Gargron Yeah that's a good point,
| I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt!
|
| The fediverse could really use that type of growth, and it's
| a good sign that they are willing to have discussions with
| fediverse stakeholders."
| rvz wrote:
| So it has been admitted with a very predictable outcome [0]
| that the main instance (mastodon.social) is now corrupted,
| compromised and has capitulated into Meta's NDA and will
| get even more centralized.
|
| This sounds more like Meta used NDAs on the largest
| instances on Mastodon to not instance-level ban them once
| they get Instagram on ActivityPub which of course means
| that Meta is now in control of most of Mastodon already
| (the ones that have the most users)
|
| So essentially, Meta has captured another social network
| without trying.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36012434
| jsnell wrote:
| What's the mechanism by which an NDA translates to
| control of Mastodon instances? Because that's totally
| outside the scope of a normal NDA.
| detaro wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/8/23754304/instagram-meta-
| tw...
| notacoward wrote:
| Project 92 is Meta's rumored Twitter-killer, further rumored
| to be based (in some part at least) on Instagram or the
| Instagram codebase.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-18 23:02 UTC)